Since the scientific revolution, experimental verification has been
hailed as the touchstone of truth, and the remarkable success of the
physical sciences has testified to the great importance of this
principle. Religion, on the other hand, is often viewed as a dogma
without any grounding in experience. Although this view of religion may
be an accurate description of exoteric religion, it overlooks esoteric
dimensions of religion and ignores the possibility of a spiritual
science that, like physical science, is based on experimental
verification.

The fundamental principle of any science, whether spiritual or physical,
is the requirement that propositions be subject to independent
experimental verification by trained practitioners. Science in the
domain of the physical is physical science, and science in the domain of
the spiritual is sacred science. In contrast to science, dogmatism
makes claims to truth without requiring that they be subject to
experimental verification, or even denying that experimental
verification is possible. Dogmatism in the sphere of the spiritual is
dogmatic religion, and dogmatism in the sphere of the physical is
scientism.

SCIENCE

DOGMATISM

PHYSICAL

Physical Science

Scientism

SPIRITUAL

Sacred Science

Dogmatic Religion

Dogmatism results from an epistemological error, i.e. a mistake about
what is knowable. Dogmatic religion is characterized by the denial of
direct spiritual knowledge. As a result, religious claims are based on
a scripture whose ultimate validity can never be known. Ironically, the
denial of the possibility of spiritual knowledge by dogmatic religions
is contradicted by the very mystics who founded them. These mystics
have all testified that there is, indeed, a faculty of spiritual
knowledge that can be awakened.

"The unanimous witness of the sages and the saints, over the whole
surface of the globe and throughout the ages, is a sign or a criterion
which no man of good faith can despise."

Dogmatic science, like dogmatic religion, also denies the possibility of
direct spiritual knowledge. It asserts that the only true source of
knowledge or experimental verification is the physical senses.
Consequently, the only true science is physical science, i.e.
science whose domain of experimental verification is limited to
physical data. Ironically, this assertion that non-physical
claims can not be verified and must therefore be rejected from science
is itself a non-physical claim. If it is true, then this claim itself
can not be verified and must be rejected from science. In other words,
physical science, which is by definition limited to physically
verifiable claims, becomes dogmatic by making claims about what is
beyond the realm of the physically verifiable.

The dogmatic denial of spiritual knowledge inevitably leads to the
dogmatic denial of spiritual realities as well. That such realities are
not verifiable by sensory knowledge, however, does not in any way prove
that they are not verifiable at all. As the Sufi poet Rumi reminds us,
"The proof of the Sun is the Sun: if thou require the proof, do not
avert thy face!"[28] Just because physics
only studies the shadows on the wall of the cave, it is not justified in
concluding that only the shadows exist.

Because true science requires verification, the possibility of a
spiritual science rests on the existence of an organ of spiritual
knowledge. In addition to the testimony of the mystics, the science of
mathematics provides evidence of a non-physical form of knowledge. A
mathematical theorem is verified by a mental examination of its logical
coherence and consistency, and its truth is not in any way subject to
agreement with sensory experience. The existence of mathematical
science, therefore, establishes the possibility of other non-physical
sciences whose propositions are verified by forms of knowledge other
than physical.

The fact that spiritual knowledge is not active or highly developed in
everyone does not imply that it can not form the basis for a science.
The principle of scientific verification requires only that propositions
must be verifiable by trained practitioners. Physicists must be
trained for years to verify the esoteric propositions of high energy
particle physics. Mathematicians must be trained for years to verify
the abstract theorems of algebraic topology. So we should not object if
monks must be trained for years to verify the subtle insights of
Buddhist philosophy. As in any science, the practitioner must undergo
years of discipline and training in order to understand and
experimentally verify the propositions of the science. In principle,
however, we all have the potential to verify the claims made by
spiritual science, provided we awaken and train our faculty of spiritual
discernment through appropriate disciplines.

The fact that a non-physical form of knowledge is private does not imply
that it can not be subject to independent verification. Private
knowledge can be universal intersubjective knowledge. For example,
although mathematical knowledge is verified in a private insight, it is
one of the most universally valid forms of knowledge we have. The truth
of a theorem is not a matter of opinion and does not depend upon
personal or even cultural conditioning. Mathematics, therefore, gives an
excellent example of private knowledge that is nonetheless universal in
nature.

It should be pointed out that even our perceptions of the physical world
are ultimately private. Our knowledge of the physical world is highly
individualized. Nonetheless, physical science, by subjecting our
experiences to intersubjective agreement, trains us to isolate and
abstract from these private experiences the universal aspects that are
independent of the observer. In mathematics we are trained to
discriminate between logical inferences that are universally true and
those that are not. Similarly, spiritual science trains us to
distinguish between the personal elements of spiritual experience and
the universal elements by subjecting these experiences to independent
verification.

Intersubjective agreement is a means for preventing the confusion of
private insights of a personal nature with private insights of a
universal nature. It is to address this difficulty that traditions rely
upon a group of peers to validate personal experiences. For example,
the recent proof of Fermat's last theorem by mathematician Andrew Wiles
began as a personal insight in his consciousness. It was not generally
accepted until it was validated by a group of qualified peers. Recent
experimental evidence for the top quark was similarly subjected to
review by qualified peers before it was accepted as valid. This peer
review checks the experience or experiment against accepted methods of
verification, proper use of relevant tools, and internal consistency.
The same takes place in spiritual sciences where, for example, a
spiritual master may validate (or not) the student's interpretation of
an experience. Although this method of validation reduces the
possibility of error in the interpretation of private experience, it
does not eliminate the possibility of error entirely. This difficulty,
however, is present in all sciences.

The fact that private non-physical knowledge can be shared is
demonstrated by mathematics. Although the insight of the mathematician
can only be expressed to others indirectly in symbols and words, if
those symbols and words evoke a similar private insight in another
person, the knowledge has been shared. Similarly, spiritual knowledge is
transmitted and passed on down through generations of spiritual
practitioners, each of whom verifies the teachings in private
experience.

The communication of inner knowledge is always indirect and evocative
rather than direct and descriptive. For example, if a friend has never
known the taste of a bran muffin, you can never -- no matter how many
words you use to describe it -- give your friend real knowledge of that
taste. What you can do, however, is give your friend a recipe
describing how to make muffins. If your friend then follows the recipe,
and tastes the muffins, the knowledge will be shared. This is analogous
to how spiritual knowledge is shared in sacred sciences through
instructions to undertake specific practices. It is also the way
mathematical knowledge is shared among mathematicians through
instructions to follow the steps of a proof.

It is significant that, like mathematical knowledge, the transmission of
spiritual knowledge is contingent on the development of certain
abilities in the receiver. Indeed, many of the spiritual disciplines
and practices taught by the mystical traditions of the world are
designed specifically to develop these abilities. The transmission of
spiritual knowledge, however, requires a much deeper development of
abilities in the receiver than does physical or mathematical science.
Consequently, it may appear that it is not possible to share or transmit
spiritual knowledge when, in fact, it is merely much more difficult to
do so.

"Religious faith...is blameworthy only when it usurps intelligence and
opposes truth, and not when it prolongs the first and serves the second,
this being its normal function."
[29]

Because the transmission and communication of spiritual knowledge
demands so much of the receiver, anyone who wishes to verify -- or even
understand -- the claims of the mystics must commit to extensive
training and discipline without certain knowledge of their validity.
Spiritual science, therefore, requires faith. But it does not demand
faith to the exclusion of truth or reason. Faith is merely a stepping
stone to knowledge. Faith serves this essential role in the
mathematical and physical sciences as well. The first step in the
training of a physicist is to accept on faith the teachings of the
physicists at the university. Only after years of training in the
theories and experimental methods of physics is one capable of actually
verifying for oneself that the teachings are true. Then faith is
replaced by knowledge. The understanding of faith in sacred science,
therefore, is that any acceptance on faith is provisional only, and the
truth of any hypothesis is always subject to experimental verification.

It is often pointed out that the statements made by mystics are
contradictory. This is not, however, a phenomenon limited to sacred
science. In physics, for example, there was a time when there were two
contradictory theories of light. One theory claimed light is a particle
that is localized in space. The other theory claimed light is a wave
that is not localized in space. There were experiments to justify both
positions, and the positions were clearly contradictory. This was a
real crisis in physics. The open minded scientist who is interested in
truth will not dismiss one position and defend the other, but rather
seek a reconciliation of the two. It was this attitude that led to the
development of quantum mechanics, which explains both the wave and
particle experiments with one unified theory. Similarly, in sacred
sciences, we should not reject contradictions but allow the tension to
feed a creative insight into a deeper understanding.

Certain contradictions in spiritual traditions, however, are inevitable
and irreducible. The mystics of all traditions have emphasized that the
ultimate spiritual knowledge can not be represented in a logically
consistent conceptual system. Short of this ultimate knowledge,
however, there is the possibility of consistent conceptual
representation of spiritual laws or principles. For example, in analogy
to the physical law that to every action is an equal and opposite
reaction, one may formulate a spiritual law of karma that as ye sow, so
shall ye reap.

A spiritual law, like a law of physics, is a testable proposition that
states a certain relationship between properties or states. Laws are
generally invariant to the time, place, and person conducting the
verification. Laws, however, are relative and not absolute.
Recognizing the relative nature of laws often resolves apparent
contradictions between them. For example, an important factor
contributing to the contingent nature of a scientific law is its limit
of applicability. Just as Newton's laws of motion are not valid on the
quantum scale or at relativistic speeds, so the law of karma is valid
only in a limited domain. Thus, even though the more general laws of
relativity and quantum mechanics contradict the laws of classical
physics in certain cases, they nevertheless agree in a certain limited
domain.

In understanding the relationship between laws of differing degrees of
generality, mathematical concepts are often useful. One such concept is
the idea of dimensionality. The full Reality is like an infinite
dimensional space. Subtle levels correspond to viewing Reality as it
is projected into high dimensional spaces. Gross levels correspond to
viewing Reality as it is projected into low dimensional spaces. There
is a lot more distortion in the lower dimensional projection since more
information is lost. Moreover, the full Reality can never be captured
or described within a finite dimensional space. The act of projection
is an ignorance of certain dimensions of Reality, and the result of the
projection is a limited aspect of Reality. If one is unconscious that
any projection is happening, then there is no knowledge of ignorance of
the other dimensions and the projected reality is mistaken for the
whole thing. If one becomes conscious of the act of projection,
however, then the illusion is gone and one will never be fooled into
thinking that a finite dimensional projection is anything more than a
limited slice of the infinite dimensional Reality. There can be
successive projections as well. The gross levels can be seen to arise
from projections of subtle levels which are themselves projections of
the infinite Reality. And there can be many different gross projections
of the same subtle projection, just as there are many different ways to
manifest an archetype. The number of possible low-dimensional
projections is very large, and each arises from further limitations,
restrictions, or acts of ignorance of certain dimensions of the high
dimensional projections.

The degrees of generality of law can be illustrated by examples from
physical laws. For example, Newton's universal law of gravity,
F = G m1 m2 / r^2, is a more general law
than the instance of that law as it applies to the gravity of the earth,
F = mg. Applications of physical laws correspond to adding
limitations and restrictions to those laws so that they apply to
specific circumstances. They become more contingent and dependent and
less universal and general. They contact particular phenomena and
measurements in the gross, concrete world and leave behind the abstract
generality of the universal law. Applying physics corresponds to
tracing the process of creation of the world through the introduction
of distinctions and limitations and ignorance of certain possibilities
while focusing only on particular phenomena. Going in the opposite
direction are the theoretical physicists who are reaching from the
specific phenomena and limited equations to more general laws that are
more universal and comprehensive. This is a connecting back to the more
subtle levels of manifestation, a re-ligion in the etymological sense
of the word. This is a very beautiful way of viewing physics that
reveals its sacred component.

Outer space is within us inasmuch as the laws of space are within us;
outer and inner space are the same.
[30]

Physical and spiritual laws, in fact, are intimately related. There
are, as it were, levels within the psyche that correspond to levels of
physical manifestation. The deep levels contain invariants over very
large classes of phenomena. These correspond to the high-dimensional
spaces in the spatial metaphor discussed above. At this level are
subtle forms and archetypes that are common to all creatures by virtue
of our common existence in this same physical universe. These forms are
usually projected (in the psychological sense -- although this also
alludes to the spatial metaphor) and experienced as objectively existing
rather than as subjective preconditions of experience. At shallower
levels within the psyche, there are invariants that correspond to more
limited classes of phenomena, e.g., invariants that are shared among
all humans, but that humans do not necessarily share with animals,
plants, or inanimate forms of manifestation. These levels are also
usually unconsciously projected and experienced as objectively existing.
Thus we experience a shared human world as objective. At even shallower
levels are cultural conditionings and paradigms. These also condition
our experience and are shared by large groups of people, but they are
not common to all humans. Here we begin to enter the realm of what is
normally considered personal since, unlike the deeper levels, one can,
without extraordinary effort, become conscious of these levels, see
their variation among humans, and withdraw the projection. At still
shallower levels of the psyche are the more personal habits and
conditionings that are often unconscious and projected, but can be made
conscious with a little insight. These shallow levels are hardly
invariant even in one human.

The levels of the psyche, therefore, get progressively more universal as
they deepen, and because the deeper levels are invariant among larger
and larger classes of manifestation, they are more difficult to
consciously recognize and are consequently projected as being objective
in origin. So the laws of nature correspond to a deep level in this
scheme -- much deeper than cultural levels of conditioning. Our
conscious understanding or representation of these laws, however, are
certainly influenced by our cultural conditioning. That conditioning,
however, is merely the form in which the archetypes are represented,
like the cultural inflections of the universal archetypes of mythology.

Although it is possible in principle to change the objective world by
changing subjective preconditions of experience, this would involve
extremely deep psychological penetration. More superficial changes in
personal and cultural presuppositions can alter our experience in small
ways (e.g. optical illusions) but do not affect physical laws, e.g., the
rate of fall of objects. The levels of the psyche that go far deeper
than the merely personal or cultural levels of conditioning are the
subjective correlate to the objective physical laws. If they change, so
will the world that is experienced. But this would correspond to very
radical change, and it would not be accurate to even call such an
experience human anymore.

As humans, we are by definition living in this particular world that has
arisen in dependence on our characteristically human preconditions of
experience. That being given, understanding the world means for us
understanding the true nature of this particular world and this
particular psyche. Superficial beliefs that are not in harmony with the
human mode of existence naturally lead to conflict and confusion. So it
is wise for anyone who desires harmony and clarity of understanding to
understand the nature of this human world with minimal distortion from
the more superficial levels of the mind. But this human mode of
existence is not the only way a world can be, and is not the only way
conscious experience can be structured. There are thousands of worlds
with thousands of beings. The ways of consciousness are infinite, and
we see here but a thin sliver of all that is possible.